IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER,
COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO
APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL FILED
MAY 14, 2013 AND FIRST AMENDED APPEAL FILED ON MAY 28, 2013
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT AS THE
TRIAL COURT DECISION OF APRIL 29, 2013 TO MARK OFF MOTIONS
TO BE RECLAIMED IS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT
MAGISTRATE ORDERS CANNOT BE APPEALED TO THE APPELLATE COURT
UNLESS A FINAL DECISION OF THE FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAS
FIRST BEEN APPEALED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT AND THE SUPERIOR
COURT RENDERS A FINAL JUDGMENT THEREON. SEE STATE V. CURCIO,
191 CONN. 27, 31 (1983) AND GENERAL STATUTES SECTIONS
46b-231(n) AND 46b-231(o); WHY THE FOURTH AMENDED APPEAL
FILED ON OCTOBER 16, 2013 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF AGGRIEVEMENT AS IT APPEARS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE OCTOBER
15, 2013 AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES REGARDING VISITATION, SEE
WOODSIDE VILLAGE-STRATFORD ASSN V. HERTZMARK, 36 CONN. APP.
73, 75-76 (1994) AND SERGEANT V. SERGEANT, 39 CONN. APP.
57,62 N. 9 (1995) AND FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE
THE PARTIAL GRANTING OF A MOTION TO QUASH IS NOT AN
APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT, SEE STATE V. CURCIO, 191 CONN.
27, 31 (1983); WHY THE FIFTH AMENDED APPEAL FILED ON
DECEMBER 30, 2013 AND SEVENTH AMENDED APPEAL FILED ON JULY
8, 2013 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS THERE WERE NO FINAL
DECISIONS ENTERED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT ON DECEMBER 24, 2013
AND JUNE 25, 2013.

COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED
PARTY ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO BE PREPARED TO GIVE REASONS, IF
ANY, WHY THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED PURSUANT TO
PRACTICE BOOK SECTION 85-2 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
RULES AND ORDERS OF THE COURT, FILING OF PAPERS WHICH UNDULY
DELAY THE PROGRESS OF THIS APPEAL, PRESENTATION OF
UNNECESSARY OR UNWARRANTED MOTIONS OR ISSUES ON APPEAL AND
PRESENTATION OF FRIVOLOUS APPEALS OR AMENDED APPEALS OR
ISSUES ON APPEAL. SPECIFICALLY, COUNSEL AND THE
SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO GIVE REASONS,
IF ANY, WHY THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM
FILING ANY FURTHER APPEALS OR AMENDED APPEALS IN THIS MATTER
(KNO-FA04-0128908) WITH THE TRIAL COURT OR THE APPELLATE
COURT WITHOUT FIRST FILING A MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE
AN APPEAL OR AMENDED APPEAL WITH THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE
APPELLATE COURT GRANTING THE MOTION FOR PERMISSION.
(1) AC35726VERNON
LEFTRIDGEVernon Leftridge, self-represented partyLaw
Offices of Tricia J. Johnson v.KENISHA WIGGINS
Kenisha Wiggns, self-represented partyFor State of
Connecticut, Support Enforcement Division:Sean O. Kehoe,
Assistant Attorney GeneralSupport Enforcement Division

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE
SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE
REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL
COURT’S RULING STRIKING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE JUDGMENT HAD
NOT BEEN RENDERED ON THE STRICKEN COMPLAINT AT THE TIME THE
APPEAL WAS FILED. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §§ 10-44 AND 61-2;
PELLECCHIA V. CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO., 139 CONN. APP.
88, 90-91 (2012), CERT. DENIED, 307 CONN. 950 (2013).
(2) AC36390TIMOTHY T.
FOLSOM ET AL.Timothy T. Folsom, self-represented party
v.ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF MILFORD, ET AL.
Rose Kallor, LLP

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL
ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THIS
APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING GRANTING THE
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A PREJUDGMENT REMEDY SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE
THE APPEAL WAS NEITHER FILED WITHIN THE SEVEN DAY APPEAL
PERIOD SET FORTH IN GENERAL STATUTES § 52-278l; SEE AMBROISE
V. WILLIAM RAVEIS REAL ESTATE, INC., 226 CONN. 757, 767
(1993); NOR WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF THE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REARGUE. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §
63-1 (c) (1).(3)
AC36422RICHARD MEGOS Halloran & Sage, LLP v.
KARIN RANTALampert, Toohey & Rucci, LLCMcNamara &
Kenney

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND
SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE
REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THIS APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S
AUGUST 15, 2013 ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OPEN
JUDGMENT AND EXTEND THE LAW DAY BY 180 DAYS SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED AS MOOT, AS THERE IS NO LONGER ANY PRACTICAL
RELIEF THIS COURT CAN GRANT THE DEFENDANTS; SEE MARINE
MIDLAND BANK V. AHERN, 51 CONN. APP. 790, 793-95 (1999),
APPEAL DISMISSED, 252 CONN. 151 (2000); AND WHY THE AMENDED
APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S DECEMBER 12, 2013 ORDER
GRANTING OF THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OPEN AND RESET THE LAW
DAY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT BECAUSE THE LAW DAY DID
NOT RUN ON JANUARY 6, 2014, DUE TO A BANKRUPTCY STAY.
(4) AC35959FARMINGTON
SAVINGS BANKPolivy & Taschner, LLC v.CLAUDE
BROUILLARD ET AL.Mei-Wa ChengClaude M. Brouillard,
self-represented partyScully, Nicksa & Reeve, LLP
Cohen, Burns, Hard & PaulSiegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell &
Beck, PC

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE
SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE
REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE PORTION OF THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING
THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT THE FEES AWARDED TO THE
GUARDIAN AD LITEM ARE IN THE NATURE OF CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT AS THE MOTION
FOR CONTEMPT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF THE FEES OF THE GUARDIAN AD
LITEM WAS NOT DECIDED. SEE STATE V. CURCIO, 191 CONN. 27, 31
(1983).(5) AC36231
SHAWN TITTLEGiuliano Richardson & Sfara, LLCJoseph
T. Brady v.SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE
Susan Skipp-Tittle, self-represented partyCounsel
for the Minor Child: Not appointedGuardian ad litem:
Mary P. BrighamCounsel for the Guardian ad litem: Not
appointed